A lot of the paranormal and absolutely far out conspiracies have no weight to them, yet I've found things involving recent history may have some powerful weight behind them depending on the evidence that can be produced for either side. Many of us believe in at least one big lie right now. perhaps even myself.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

Of course everybody has been fooled by something.
I was wondering about the
"A lot of the paranormal and absolutely far out conspiracies have no weight to them, yet I've found things involving recent history may have some powerful weight behind them depending on the evidence that can be produced for either side."
part.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

(21-09-2012 02:34 AM)Free Thought Wrote: Of course everybody has been fooled by something.
I was wondering about the
"A lot of the paranormal and absolutely far out conspiracies have no weight to them, yet I've found things involving recent history may have some powerful weight behind them depending on the evidence that can be produced for either side."
part.

People who hunt down lies in recent history generally have some evidence to back them up.

People who make conspiracy theories about ufo's, lizard men, etc... don't. Or they pull shit right out of their ass. Most common examples of faked evidence are for bigfoot with footprints.

However a lot of people point out many flaws in the official story of 9/11, flaws that can not simply be over looked, to fill in for these flaws they general show evidence supporting their side and make a valid argument against the official story. Whilst the officials usually tend to repeat the same thing without offering much evidence.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

(21-09-2012 02:48 AM)Free Thought Wrote: What are the flaws in 9/11's story?

This is not a debate for the 9/11 conspiracy theory, nor do I actively seek to engage in debate with anyone here. For a very specific reason already stated in the picture I posted in my first comment. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, because you're so full of yourself. It is not my duty to convince you that you are wrong, it is my duty to try and inspire you to start asking questions and seeking answers rather than repeat whatever it was you were first told.

I have tried in many debates to convince people that they have been fooled, offering solid evidence with no flaws and all they did was shit all over the logic called thought process. Therefore if people are so narrow-minded that they can't even process information while being open-minded it is then rather pointless to even engage in a debate with them.

Sadly I must say that the people I've debated with have mainly been atheists and their reactions have much been like that of a theist defending his or her religion against the onslaught of scientific evidence suggesting that they are indeed wrong in their fragile beliefs. I go by evidence, I live by evidence.

(21-09-2012 02:48 AM)Free Thought Wrote: What are the flaws in 9/11's story?

This is not a debate for the 9/11 conspiracy theory, nor do I actively seek to engage in debate with anyone here. For a very specific reason already stated in the picture I posted in my first comment. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, because you're so full of yourself. It is not my duty to convince you that you are wrong, it is my duty to try and inspire you to start asking questions and seeking answers rather than repeat whatever it was you were first told.

I have tried in many debates to convince people that they have been fooled, offering solid evidence with no flaws and all they did was shit all over the logic called thought process. Therefore if people are so narrow-minded that they can't even process information while being open-minded it is then rather pointless to even engage in a debate with them.

Sadly I must say that the people I've debated with have mainly been atheists and their reactions have much been like that of a theist defending his or her religion against the onslaught of scientific evidence suggesting that they are indeed wrong in their fragile beliefs. I go by evidence, I live by evidence.

I merely asked a question, the nature of it is neutral, and yet you lash out at me, with no reason.

Your assumption of my being "...so full of myself." is without basis. And yes, if you are going to assert something it's on you to prove it. You say you are here to inspire me(and others I assume) to ask questions, I did and got this in return.

Also, I dare say that if put something something out on the field, it is fair game, especially in the Skepticism, Pseudoscience, and Conspiracy Theories section for this case.

At the present moment you are mind me of a viper.

But that's just my silly little opinion.

Good day, and thanks for all the lulz.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.